Lard (bad) vs Fish oil (good)
lodro
Posts: 982 Member
Crosstalk between Gut Microbiota and Dietary Lipids Aggravates WAT Inflammation through TLR Signaling
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413115003897
In the present study, we demonstrate that the type of dietary lipids affects the gut microbiota and that the gut microbiota contributes to the phenotypic differences between mice fed lard and mice fed fish oil. Mice fed a lard diet have increased TLR activation in the systemic circulation, increased WAT inflammation, and impaired insulin sensitivity compared to mice fed fish oil.
Thoughts?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413115003897
In the present study, we demonstrate that the type of dietary lipids affects the gut microbiota and that the gut microbiota contributes to the phenotypic differences between mice fed lard and mice fed fish oil. Mice fed a lard diet have increased TLR activation in the systemic circulation, increased WAT inflammation, and impaired insulin sensitivity compared to mice fed fish oil.
Thoughts?
0
Replies
-
I think I would eat less lard and more fish oil, if I was a mouse.
Edit to add: In case you're not aware, mice metabolize fat in very different ways than humans do. Their response to fats is not directly applicable to humans.0 -
I think I would eat less lard and more fish oil, if I was a mouse.
Edit to add: In case you're not aware, mice metabolize fat in very different ways than humans do. Their response to fats is not directly applicable to humans.
I would say that the original references also depend on what kind of lard. The manufactured crap commercially available is not the same as naturally rendered lard most of us here love.
And @FIT_Goat I had no idea that mice metabolized fat so much differently than humans. I've never really had cause to pay attention, honestly, but that is excellent info!0 -
Interesting paper. The lard-eating rats gained a lot more weight than the fish-oil-eating rats. The paper mentioned "isocaloric," so that seemed very odd. Turns out the pellets were isocaloric, but the rats got to eat all they wanted, and they liked the lard pellets a lot more.
Still, the lard-eating rats gained more weight even on a calorie-adjusted basis for the first 10 weeks, and then it matched.
Insulin levels were MUCH higher in the lard-eating rats, like by a factor of 4X. Part of that was due to the higher carb intake (due to higher pellet consumption), but not all of it. The researchers called this result "expected," so apparently they know something I don't.
0 -
Yes, that last bit gave me pause for thought too. Also, I thought: was it pure lard and fish oil, or lard+carbs etc?0
-
They give a breakdown of the food: 20% protein, 35% carb, 45% fat by calories. Only the fat changed: pure lard or pure fish-oil.0
-
Lab rats, at least some breeds, have been bred to show a high insulin response to fat intake. In this sense, it is an expected result. It is also one that doesn't exist in humans (at least not to my knowledge).
This is part of what I was talking about when I said that rats process fats very differently than we do. They can show a high insulin response from a high-fat and no-carb meal, while humans (typically) won't.0 -
Lab rats, at least some breeds, have been bred to show a high insulin response to fat intake. In this sense, it is an expected result. It is also one that doesn't exist in humans (at least not to my knowledge).
This is part of what I was talking about when I said that rats process fats very differently than we do. They can show a high insulin response from a high-fat and no-carb meal, while humans (typically) won't.
How on this earth is that supposed to be truly indicative of human response???0
This discussion has been closed.